UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. Vs. BALBIR SINGH & ANR. G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 read with Sec. 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite party (OP), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the impugned order dated 24.12.2014, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) in Consumer Complaint No. 298/1998, filed by the present respondent no. 1, Balbir Singh, vide which, the complainant was held entitled to the claim for the alleged burglary at his premises along with interest.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant/respondent no. 1, Balbir Singh is the sole proprietor of M/s. Electro Metal Industries engaged in the business of manufacturing solder wires, solder sticks and liquid flux under the brand name of 'Guru'. The complainant obtained a fire policy as well as miscellaneous theft insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs, covering the burglary and theft for the period 16.11.1996 to 15.11.1997. It has been stated in the complaint that on 18.06.1997, 11 sillies of tin were found missing from the factory. On the next date i.e. 19.06.1997, when the factory was opened for day's work, 22 more sillies of tin were found missing. On 20.06.1997 again, when the factory was reopened for day's work, another 22 sillies of tin were found stolen. Hence, there was theft of 55 sillies of tin on 3 consecutive dates. It was found that the culprits had broken open the roof sheet from the top, entered the premises and had stolen the said sillies. A complaint was lodged with the local police and an intimation was also given to the Insurance Company, which appointed M/s. Select Surveyors to assess and investigate the loss. The said surveyor submitted its report on 23.07.1997, saying that there was no justification for giving the claim, as it was not possible to lift a 30kg silly to the height of 20ft at the roof top. Thereafter, another surveyor was appointed, but he also did not recommend the claim, although his findings were at a little variance with the report of the previous surveyor. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim, saying that the complainant had not taken timely action to safeguard the property in question in time. The consumer complaint in question was then filed, seeking directions to the Insurance Company to pay the claim, amounting to Rs. 5,28,000.00 towards loss of raw material as well as damages of Rs. 50,000.00 for mental tension etc. along with interest. The complaint was allowed by the State Commission, vide orders dated 11.09.2007, and the relief asked for in the complaint was allowed, besides Rs. 10,000.00 as cost of litigation. Being aggrieved against the said order, the Insurance Company/petitioner as well as the complainant filed appeals before this Commission. The said appeals were decided by this Commission vide orders dated 20.03.2013. The order of the State Commission was set aside and the matter was remitted back to them to decide the matter afresh, by giving a firm finding whether 'burglary' as defined in the Policy and as interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Court in their order in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 644 , had taken place. In pursuance of these directions, the State Commission decided the matter vide impugned order dated 24.12.2014 and stated that it was a clear case of burglary, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and hence, the relief given to the complainant, vide order dated 11.09.2007 of the State Commission, was to be allowed along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by the OP/Insurance Company.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has drawn attention to the copy of the FIR lodged with the police after the said incident. It has been stated in report to the police that on checking, the complainant found 55 sillies of tin short from their stock and some unknown persons had stolen the material from their factory. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to the report made by the first surveyor, M/s. Select Surveyor that as per the information gathered by them, the theft had taken place on three consecutive dates and that the complainant had informed the police about the theft everyday. In reality however, there had been only one report to the police about the theft. Another surveyor, J. K. Sharma also agreed with the report of the first surveyor. The learned counsel for the complainant further stated that there was evidence of forcible entry into the premises. It had been stated in the report of the surveyor and the photographs taken by them that it was possible to take out the material by cutting the sheets at the roof top. The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in Mono Industries Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 2 CPJ 125 NC , in which it was stated that the theft committed by removal of roof sheet amounted to burglary.